


Mouvo^ ?.. 



/lfoi/<.VW^<^tD''/"v , Ufc',. 




Glass ,f f jo 



•l^ 



SPEECH 

OF ' 

HON. JOSEPH LANE, OF OREGON, 



EEPORT OF THE PEACE CONFERENCE. 



DELIVERED IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, MARCH 2, 1861. 



The Senate having under consideration the joint resolution proposing certain 
amendments to the Constitution of the United States — Mr. LANE said: 

Mb. President : I hope I shall be permitted to proceed with- 
out interruption, and I trust not to consume much time. AVhile 
I had the floor yesterday, I stated some of my objections to the 
proposed amendments to the Constitution which are now before 
us. They are : that they do not do justice to the whole country 
— that they do not do justice to all the States. I have always held 
that the territory is common property ; that it belongs to all the 
States ; that every citizen of every State has an equal right to 
emigrate to, and settle in, the common Territories ; and that any 
species of property, recognized as such in any State of the Con- 
federacy, should have a like recognition in the Territories, and 
be guarantied, protected, and secured in its full integrity, to the 
owner thereof. That this should be so, was the intent of the re- 
volutionary fatherg-'who shaped and framed the Constitution ; and 
it was this principle, more, perhaps, than any other, which called 
into being that noble compact, which has so long been a bond of 
Union and goodness between all the States. It is the very life- 
blood and vitality of the Constitution, It is the ligament that 
has held us together heretofore, and which, if cut now, will re^ 
suit only in hopeless and immutable disruption. I have never 
deviated a single iota from this correct doctrine. Had we lived 
up to this equitable principle — the foundation upon which the 
Constitution rests, upon which only this Union can be maintain- 
ed — we should have had no trouble in this country to-day. It is 
not my fault that trouble and dissatisfaction prevail ; it is not my 
fault that secession has taken place, and that further secession 
will take place, unless Congress shall recognize this great princi- 
ple of justice, of right, and of equality. That is the doctrine 
upon which this Union rests; and it must be maintained, or the 
connection will be severed. 

Printed by Lemuel Towers, at ?;2 00 per hundred copies. 



and I 30 notified the Senator from Tennessee, who arraigned me 
lu-re as votinj; against protecting pro]»erty, and who did nie will- 
ful and gross inju&tice in it — for I voted fur it and he voted against 
it. That is to say, 1 voted against the resolution introduced by 
Mr. Clingman declaring '* that slave ))ro])erty did not need',pro- 
tection in the Territories," while the Senator from Tennessee voted 
for it; and when the motion was n)ade to reconsider the vote 
adopting it in lieu of the fourth resolution of the Davis series, I 
voted tn reconsider, and the Senator from Tennessee voted against 
it, showing clearly that he was against affording that protection 
to slave projjcrty which the fourth resolution provided for. Did 
I not nuiintain the truth ? "Was I not j^rophetic in the announce- 
ment that I made in this Senate Chamber .then ? I said, that 
unless this great principle of justice, of equality, of the right of 
every man to the common territory should be maintained, this 
Union would be broken up. This great principle has not been 
maintained, but the Union has been destroyed. 

]>ut, sir, to go to the votes. It will be borne in mind, and 
every Senator on this floor will bear me out in my statement, that 
while the Davis resolutions — the series of which I speak— were 
i!p, various ])roposilions were made to amend them, and I voted 
against all amendments. There are Seiuitors here at this moment 
who will sustain me when I say that, when in caucus and we had 
under consideration this series of resolutions, I said, and said it 
boldi}' and in jdain terms, that if every man from every southern 
State of this Union would come here and say, for the sake of 
peace, if you please, or any other reason, he was willing to aban- 
don his etjuality, his right in the common territory, then, if alone, 
I would staTid and protest against it ; jjrotest that he had no right 
to surrender a constitutional right ; that none but a coward would 
do it ; that every man had a right in the common territory ; that 
it was his privilege, and he 8h<nild never surrender it with my 
permission. (Jn the other hand, I said that if every northern 
man in the Senate Chamber — nay, but even every northern citi- 
zen — expressed a desire to surrender his right, his equality, his 
privilege, to go to the common territories with his property, I 
fehould enter my solemn protest against it, and insist that he had 
a constitutional right to go there which he should never surren- 
der with my consent. Then, how any man could assert that I 
ever entertained the opinion that slavery did not need protection 
from agu^ression, is to me the strantrest, falsest thing in nature. I 
said, as 1 have shown yon, tiiat I had voted ai^ainst all amend- 
ments, and woidd continue to vote against all amendments, or 
any attemjjt whatsoever calculated to obstruct the passage of tho 
resolutions; for they asserted the right of the peoj»le to go to the 
Territories, asserted the })ovver of the court to protect them in the 
possession of tiieir property, and that if the court failed to pro- 
tect them, Congress should afford the necessary authority to do so. 
BiJt, sir, allow me to observe: there was a resolution that I 
Dover voted for, and that uo man can charge me with ever having 



voted for. Senators will recollect — and whoever lias read tlie 
proceedings of the Senate will recollect — that an amendment was 
offered as a substitute to the fourth resolution, in these words: 

"That the existing condition of the Territories does not require the intervention 
of Congress for the protection of property in slaves." 

I did not vote fur that resolution ; but the Senator from Ten- 
nessee did. That amendment was adopted in lieu of the fourth 
resolution of the series that I have read, which insured protection 
to slave property in the Territories. It was adopted not entirely 
by Democratic votes ; and that there may be no mistake, I will 
read what the Senator from Massachusetts said when he moved 
a reconsideration : 

"I wish simply to say that I voted for that resolution, because I believed the con- 
dition of the Territories requires no such law now or ever, and I do not believe in 
the enactment of any such law ; but my friends on this side of the Chamber have 
put that resolution in the series ; and for myself, I do not wish to be responsible for 
any portion of these resolutions; and I therefore wish the vote to be reconsidered." 

This was the language of the Senator from Massachusetts, when, 
he found that the Republicans, united with some Democrats, had 
stricken out the fourth resolution of the series, and inserted this_ 
as a substitute. I said to Mr. Wilson on that occasion : 

"I desire merely to tender my thanks to the honorable Senator from Massachu- 
setts. The series of resolutions, as introduced by the honorable Senator from Mis- 
sissippi, are germane one to the other. They are a declaration of principles by the 
Democratic party. This amendment, as the Senator has said correctly, has been 
fastened on the Democratic resolutions by the votes of the Republican Senators. I 
feel grateful, indeed, to the Senator for making the motion to reconsider. I hope 
the vote will be reconsidered, and the resolution voted down." 

The motion was put, and on the yeas and nays the vote was re- 
considered. I voted for the reconsideration, and I voted against 
the amendment when it was adopted as a substitute for the fourth 
resolution. Among those who voted in the affirmative for recon- 
sideration were Messrs. Benjamin, Bkown, Chesnut, Clay, Davis, 
FiTzPATRicK, Geeen, G^VIN, Hammond, Harlan, Hunter, Iveeson, 
Johnson of Arkansas, and Lane. Among those who voted against 
it, I find Johnson, of Tennessee. I did not vote to continue in 
the series a resolution that refused protection to all the people in 
the common Territories. Portions of the Journal have been pa- 
raded to show the vote on Mr. Brown's amendment to Mr. Cling- 
man's amendment. I said, in several speeches, that I should vote 
against all amendments, because the series had been considered 
not only here, but in a caucus composed of the Democratic Sena- 
tors of this body, and we had agreed to take them as a whole, 
and to vote them through altogether if we had the strength to do 
so. I voted against every proposition to amend. I voted against 
Mr. Brown's and I voted against Mr. Cling^lan's, and I voted 
against every other amendment that was calculated to weaken or 
embarrass the passage of the resolutions. Yet I am represented 
here as having voted against affording protection to slave property 
in the Territories! I ask again, if any Senator, if anv moi-. ^'u^ 
can read, can say that the fourth resolution, for w 



and for which I strnggled and contended, does not declare that 
slave iiroperty fthall be protected in the comrtion Territories of onr 
cuuntrv. 1 will read it again : 

" Retolveil, Thiit neither Conjjjress nor a Territorial Legislatnrc, whether by direct 
legifllation or l«?i,'ij-lation of au iiiJireet and unfriendly nature, possess the power to 
annul oi luipitir the eonetitutiouai right of any citizen of the United i;tute» to take 
his slave i>roporty into tlie cuiiimoti territories, but it is th« duty of »he Federal 
Governnit-nt tiiere to afford for that, a? for other species of property, the needful 
protection ; and if experienes should, at any time, prove that the judiciary does not 
poesess power to insure adequate protection, it will then become the duty of Con- 
gress to suppl}' such deficiency. 

Could anything be stronger? Could any man desire a more 
direct declaration of principles than this? Upon the yeas and 
nays I voted for it. I voted against the amendment that was 
adopted, and afterwards reconsidered, iiow, then, can a man 
arraign me befure the country as having said upon oath, on the 
25th (}i May last, that slave property should not be protected in 
the common Territories with other property ? I have always held 
that all ]»roperty should be protected, slave as well as otlier pro- 
perty ; that it should have the same protection as, and no more 
protection than, any other property. That they do not secure all 
this, is the objection I have to the amendments to the Constitu- 
tion proposed by the peace conference. They are ambiguous, 
loose, and dece})tive. I do not know that the people can com- 
prehend them. There will be no certainty under them ; and they 
would, if adopted, result in endless troubles and litigation. I 
trust no amendments will ever be made to the Constitution, unless 
they are made u])on principles of right, justice, and equality, so 
that there can be no mistake in construing them hereafter. If 
we amend the Constitution, let us do it witii a view to the peace 
of the country, with a view to the harmony of the country, with 
a view to the security of every interest, and of every State in the 
Union. If we could do that, and this day amend the Constitu- 
tion so as to provide expressly that every State should have equal 
rights in the Territories and elsewhere within the Union, this 
Confederacy would last forever, the States that have left us would 
come back, and we should have then a great and a lasting L^nion 
indeed. Without it, wa never can have a permanent Union. 
We must do something that is clearly right, or the States that 
have left us will never return. They never ought to return, un- 
less they can have the right of equality secured to them by the 
Constitution. I claim for my State just that which she is entitled 
to, and not a particle more. I would concede to the southern 
States that to which they are entitled, and not a particle more. 
That they must have, or there can be no peace, no union, no har- 
monv, no security, and no ])erpetuity of this Confederacy. Such 
amendments to the Constitution, securing these objects and })riu- 
ciples, are indispensable to the nuiintenance of the (Tovernment 
as it was formed. 

Tlien why not do right? Why nr)t every sontheru man ask 
just that which he is entitled to, and no more ? He ought to be 



content with nothing short of what he is entitled to ; and if he 
be, he is untrue to hfs section and his constituents; untrue to the 
people whose servant he is ; and untrue to the institutions of the 
country ; for the country can exist only upon the triumph of such 
•principles. He who is unwilling to deal fairly by the North and 
the South, is a man who is guilty of shattering and ruining the 
Confederacy ; destroying the peace and harmony and success of 
this great experiment of ours. 

The doctrines asserted in the series of resolutions offered by 
Mr. Davis have not been maintained ; and, as a consequence, 
events have since transpired detrimental to the public peace and 
welfare of the country, and destructive of its unity. The Union 
has been in fact broken up. But, although the ship is wrecked, 
the principles that guided her survive — live, even in the heart of 
New England. The very doctrines wdiich I have enunciated or 
advocated are laid down in the resolutions of the late Democratic 
convention of the State of Connecticut. I send them to the Sec- 
retary, and request that they be read. 

The Secretary read, as follows : 

"Resolved, That it is the opinion of the Democracy of Connecticut, in conven- 
tion assembled, that this Government is a Confederacy of sovereign and independent 
States, based and founded upon the equal rights of each ; and any legislation trench- 
ing upon the great principle of their equality, is a wanton violation of the spirit 
and letter of the constitutional compact. 

"Resolved, That the present lamentable condition of the country finds its origia 
in the unconstitutional acts and sectional spirit of a great northern party, the prin- 
ciples of whose organization deny to the people of one class of States the enjoj-ment 
and exercise of the same political rights claimed and demanded by another class of 
States; thus ignoring and desiroying the great political truth which is the founda- 
tion of our Government, and the vital principle of the Constitution of the United 
States. 

"Resolved, That the per-nicious doctrine of coercion, instead of conciliation, to be 
applied to the seceding States, which is now advocated and urged by the leaders of 
the northern sectional party, is utterly at war with the exercise of right reason, 
matured judgment, and the principles of the Constitution of the United States, and 
should be strongly resisted h\ every lover of our common couritry, by every well- 
wisher to the best interests of the human race, as opposed to the progress and civil- 
ization of the age, as the sure precursor of an internecine war, in which would be 
sacrificed the lives of hundreds of thousands of our fellow-citizens, the expenditure 
of countless millions of treasure, the destruction of the moral and commercial inter- 
ests of our people; and not only utterly fail of its avowed object, the restoration of 
the Union, but defeat forever its reconstruction. 

"Resolved, That a restoration of good feeling between the inhabitants of our 
common country should be, and is, the paramount fueling in every patriotic heart ; 
to that great object sliould be sacrificed sectional prejudice and the spirit of partisan- 
ship; therefore the Democracy of Connecticut earnestly commend to the attention 
of Congress the propositions of the venerable and distinguished Senator from Ken- 
tucky, believing that the adoption thereof, or those of a similar character, would 
greatly conduce to harmonize the opinions of the North and the South, stay the 
progress of secession, and to the reconstruction of a now dissevered Union." 

Mr. La.ne. Mr. President, in the State of Connecticut the De- 
mocracy assert the correct principle, and they charge the trouble 
in the country to the right quarter. I stated, on a former occa- 
sion, that the Democracy ot old Connecticut would never join 
the Republican party in any attempt to coerce the southern 
States ; and I am now authorized by their own declaration to say 



8 

again, what I eaid before, that thev, like the Democracy of Ore- 
gon and of every other northern State, will never join a party 
that has refused justice; that has refused ecjuality and right; that 
has refused to protect projtorty in the Territories, or wherever the 
jurisdiction of the United States extends, in ]>utting down those 
■who contended for their rights and for the ecjuality to which they 
were entitled. Sir, the loyal Democracy of this country fully 
understand the question, and they assert the right. 

Now, sir, these great ))rinciples were not carried out. The 
platform on which the Democracy presented their candidates for 
President and Vice President was not heeded, though based upon 
the Constitution. 1 will say to the Senator who has boasted of 
his ett'orts in Tennessee in behalf of the Breckinridge ticket, that 
I shall notice that hereafter ; but I have only to say now, that, 
for the sake of the country, I would to God the ticket had suc- 
ceeded. We should then have had those principles indorsed 
upon which the (Tovenuiient is established, and the country would 
Lave been at peace. For that alone I wished it to succeed ; for, 
sir, I say in your presence, and in the presence of all here, and 
before the country, that I never saw the day when I would have 
tossed a coj>per for either the Presidency or Vice Presidency, 
unless it could be obtained upon principles indispensable to the 
maintenance of this Union. For the sake of the country, then, 
I say I regret the ticket did not succeed ; otherwise, I have no 
feeling about it. 

I will say only a word, now, as to the amendments proposed to 
the Constitution. I had the pleasure of listening, yesterday, to 
the distinguished Senator from Kentucky. 1 know his patriotism 
and his devotion to the Union. I know his willingness to take 
anything, however small, however trifling, however little it might 
be, that would, in his opinion, give peace to the countr}'. Sir, I 
am actuated by no such feeling. We should never compromise 
principle nor sacrifice the eternal philosophy of justice. AVhen- 
ever the Democratic party compromised principle it laid the 
foundation of future troubles for itself and for the country. Wlien 
we do, then, amend the Constitution, it ought to be in the spirit 
of right and justice to all men and to all sections. I voted for 
the Senator's ])ro{)Ositions, and I will do so ;igain, if we can get 
a vote, because there was something in them ; something that I 
could stand by; but there is nothing in the amendments pro])osed 
by the peace conference, lie proposed to establish the line of 
3G° 30', and to prohibit slavery north of it and protect it south of 
it, in all the present territory or of the territory to be liereafter 
ac<julred. In that proposition there was something like justice 
and right; but there is nothing iji the amendments ])roposcd by 
the peace conference that any man, north or south, ought to take. 
Tliey are a cheat ; they are a deception ; they are a fraud ; they 
hold out a false idea; and I think, with all due respect to the 
Senator — for I have the highest regard for him personally — that 
he is too anxious to heal the trouble that exists in the country. 



9 

He had better place himself upon the right and stand by it. Let 
him contend, with me, for the inalienable and constitutional 
rights of every American citizen. Let him beware of " compro- 
mising" away the vital rights, privileges and immunities, of one 
portion of the country to appease the graceless, unrelenting, and 
hostile fanaticism of another portion. Let him labor with me to 
influence every State to mind its own affairs, and to keep the 
Territories entirely ,//'(3<? to the enterprise of all, with equal security 
and protection — without invidious distinctions — to the property 
of every citizen. Thus, and only thus, can we have peace, hap- 
piness, and eternal Union. 

Then the Senator from Oregon comes. He talked flippantly 
about " his" people and " his" State, and what they would do. 
Mr. President, I have lived a long time in Oregon — longer than 
that Senator — and I have never claimed that the people of Ore- 
gon belonged to me. I have never assumed to call them " my 
people." I am their servant, and I desire to represent them hon- 
estly and faithfully, as I have done at all times, and under all 
circumstances. I pledge them nothing. " My State !" " My 
people !" Good God, sir ! has it come to this, that a Senator who 
has been there but a short time ; who can hardly claim a resi- 
dence there ; who owns no house or land there ; who has paid no 
taxes there, or even worked upon the public roads ; who was 
simply imported like a machine, to political order; who never 
fought a battle to protect the emigrants and settlers, or to prevent 
the Indians from committing depredations and outrages there, 
should have the assurance to get up in his place in the Senate 
and claim that his " people" would trample upon the rights of 
the South, and join with the Senator and his confreres in their 
fanatical ranks? I pledge the people of Oregon to nothing. 
They are a free people ; they are a gallant people ; they are a 
sensible people ; they are a patriotic people. They had the kind- 
ness to send me to Congress, and I have served them faithfully. 
They are my masters. I shall soon be one of them. We shall 
soon balance accounts, and I will return and be with them and 
of them — an honest, industrious farmer, as most of them are. I 
shall pay my taxes, and discharge all my duties, as a citizen 
should ; and I will be with them whether I am in Congress or 
out of Congress. 

These observations, relative to my colleague, have been a devi- 
ation from the regular line of my argument ; but I could not 
avoid noticing the anxiety of the Senator from Kentucky to ac- 
cept anything, and the readiness of the Senator from Oregon to 
pledge his people — ''my people" — to anything that he chooses. 
]^ow, I know there are many free people in the State of Oregon. 
They generally do as they please. They have no master. No 
man owns them, and no man can claim to control them. But 
this I am warranted in asserting — for I know long, well, and in- 
timately, the gallant men of Oregon — that they will not be found 



10 

ready or inclined, at tlie Senator's and liis master's beck, to im- 
brue their hands, tor a godless cause, in tVaternal gore. 

Mr. President, the principles asserted in the resolutions adopted 
by this Senate, last winter, have not been carried out. We see 
the conpequences. We see a dissevered country and a divided 
Union. A number of the States have gone oft", have formed an 
independent Government; it is in existence, and the States com- 
posing it will never come back to you, unless you say in plain 
English, in your amendments to tlie Constitution, that every State 
in the future Union has an equal right to the Territories and all 
the protection and blessings of this Government — never. I tell 
you, sir, although some foolish men and some wicked ones may 
say I am a disuuionist, I am for the Union upon the princii)le8 of 
the Constitution, and not a traitor. None but a coward will even 
think mc a traitor; and if anybody thinks I am, let him test me. 
This Union could exist upon the ]>rinciples that I have held and 
that are set forth in the Davis resolutions ; but upon no other 
condition can it exist. Then, sir, disunion is inevitable. It is 
not g"ing to stop with the seven States that are out. No, sir; my 
word for it, unless you do something more than is proposed in 
this proposition. Old Virginia will go out too — slothful as she has 
been, and tardy as she seems in appreciating her own interests 
and her rights, and kind and generous as she has been in inviting 
a peace congress to agree upon measures of safety for the Union, 
The time will come, however, when Old Virginia will stand 
trilling and chicanery no longer. Neither will North Carolina 
sutler it. None of the slave States will endure it; for they can- 
not separate one from the other, and they M'ill not. They will 
go out of this Union and into one of their own ; forming a great, 
homogeneous, and glorious southern confederacy. It is, and it 
has been, Senators, in your power to prevent this ; it is, and it 
has been, for you to say (you might to-day, as it is the last day, 
say so,) whether the Union shall be saved or not. 1 know that 
gallant Old Dominion will never put up with less than her 
rights; and if she should, I should entertain for her contempt. 
I should feel contempt for her if she were to ask for anything 
more than her rights; and so I would if she were to put up with 
anything less than her constitutional rights. Then, sir, secession 
has taken place, and it will go on unless we do right. 

Ml-. President, in the remarks which I made on the PJth of 
December last, in reply to the Senator from Tennessee, I took 
the ground that a State might rightfully secede from the Union 
when she could no longer remain in it on an e([ual footing with 
the other States; in other words, when her continuance as a 
member of the Confederacy involved the sacritiee of her con- 
stitutional rights, safety, and honor. This right 1 deduced from 
the theory of e(iujility of the States, ujion which rests the whole 
fabric of our unrivaled system of Government — unrivaled, as it 
came from the hands of its illustrious framers — a model as ]>er- 
fect, perhaps, as human wisdom could devise, securing to all the 



u 

blessings of civil and religious liberty, when rightly understood 
and properly administered ; but like all other Governments, and 
even Christianity itself, a most dangerous engine of oppression 
when, having fallen into the hands of persons strangers ^ to its 
spirit, and unmindful of the benificent objects for which it was 
framed, it is perverted from its high and noble mission to the 
base uses of a selfish or sectional ambition, or a blind and bigoted 
fanaticism. I said, on that occasion — referring to this funda- 
mental principle of our Government, the equality of the States — 
that as long "as this equality be maintained the Union will endure, 
and no longer." I might here undertake to enforce, by argument 
and the authority of writers on the nature and purposes of our 
Government, this, to me, self-evident proposition. But I deem 
it unnecessary to consume the time of the Senate in discussing 
that branch of the subject. 

A certain distinguished Senator, (Mr. Trumbull,) in language 
which, though parliamentary, was not remarkable for good taste, 
took me to task, a few days ago, for my frequent allusions to 
" State equality." I will not again, if I can help it, incur the 
displeasure of that Senator by referring to a principle of the Con- 
stitution which he aifects to treat as unworthy of being_ discussed, 
or even alluded to in this august body. It may be quite unsena- 
torial for a member of this body to refer to a great principle of 
the Constitution. If so— and iii the judgment of the Senator it 
seems to be so — I have committed a mistake. ^ My excuse is, that 
I forgot at the moment that I was speaking since the adoption of 
the Chicago platform, which seems, in the opinion of gentlemen 
on the other side, to have superseded the Constitution. I hope 
this will be received as a sufficent apology for violating the rules 
of this body, as understood on the Republican side of the Cham- 
ber. 

I propose, Mr. President, to confine what I have to say in re- 
gard to the right of secession to the question : who must judge 
whether such a right exists, and when it should be exercised? 
According to the theory of every despotic government of ancient 
or modern times there is ho such right. A province of an em- 
pire, how much soever .oppressed, is held by the oppressor as an 
integral part of his dominions. The yoke, once fastened on the 
neck of the subject, is expected, however galling, to be worn 
with patience and entire submission to the tyrant's will. This is 
the theory of despotism. What are its fruits? We have seen, 
in modern times, some of the bloodiest struggles recorded in his- 
tory growing out of the assertion by one party, and the denial by 
the other, of this very right. Hungary undertook to " secede" 
from the Austrian empire. Her right to do so was denied. She 
constituted an integral part of the empire— a great " consolidated" 
nation, as some consider the United States to be. Being an inte- 
gral part of the empire, according to the theory of the Austrian 
Government, she must so remain forever. Austrianot having 
the power to enforce an acquiescence in this doctrine, Russian 



legions were called to her aid ; and Hungary, on whose gallant 
Btrnggle for independence the liberty-loving people of this coun- 
try looked with so much aduiinition and sympathy, soon lay pros- 
trate ;ind hleeding at the tyrant's feet. You may cull this attempt 
of llungar}^ tu regain her indejjendence revolution. That is 
precisely what Austria called it. I call it an effort on lier part 
to peaceably secede — to ])eaceably dissolve her connection with a 
Government which, in her judgment, had beconie intolerably 
unjust and oppressive. Iler oppressors told her it w;i8 not her 
province but theirs, to judge of her alleged grievances; that to 
ackncmdedge the right of secession would strike a fatal blow at 
the integrity of the empire, which could be maintained only by 
eidorcing the perfect obedience of eacli and every |iart. 

We have, in the recent struggle of the Italian States, an instruc- 
tive commentary on the now mooted question of secession and 
coercion. Indeed, history, through all past ages, is but a record 
of tlie etforts of tyrants to prevent the recognition of the doctrine 
that a people, deeming themselves oppressed, might peaceably 
absolve themselves from allegiance to their oj)pressors. When 
our Government was formed, our fathers fondly thought that they 
had made a great improvement on the despotic systems of modern 
Europe. They saw the infinite evil resulting from coercing the 
unwilling obedience of a subject to a government wliich he ab- 
horred and detested. They accordingly declared the great truth, 
never enunciated until then, that ''governments derive all their 
just power from the consent of the governed." A government 
without such consent they held to be a tyranny. 

Now, Mr. President, this brings us to the very point in issue. 
Who is to determine whether this consent is given or withheld? 
Must it be determined by the ruler? If so, tlie proposition just 
stated is an absurdity-. Clearly it was the meaning of those who 
enunciated this great truth, that the subjects of a government 
have the right to declare or withhold their consent; otherwise no 
Buch right exists. They and they oidy, must judge whether their 
rights are protected or violated. If protbcted, every considera- 
tion of interest and safety, impels tluMn to consent to live under 
a government which secures the blessin^^s they desire. If, on the 
other hand, in their judgment, their most sacred riglits are vio- 
lated, interest and hoiKu-, aiid the instinct of self ]>rescrvation, all 
conspire to impel them to withhold their consent, which being 
■withheld, the govermnent, so far as they are concerned, ceases. 

Here I would call the attention of the Senate to the tirst of the 
Kentucky resolutions of 1T98-'*J9, written by Mr. Jefterson, in 
which he says distinctly that the parties to a political com]>act 
must judge for themselves of the mode and measure of redi-css, 
when they consider the compact violated and their rights invaded. 

" Kenolved, Thnt the aevernl States compoainc; the United States of America, are 
not uiiitfil on tlie |)riii'-i|>lc of (iiiliiiiited (•ubini.^sinn to thi-ir General <;ovt'riinK'nt ; 
but that hy compact, iitult-r the style and title of a Constitution for the United 
States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a General Govermuent for epe 



13 

cial purposes, delegated to that Government certain definite powers, reserving, eacli 
State to itself, the residuarj'^ mass of right to their own self-government; and that 
whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are im- 
authoritative, void, and of no force; that to this compact each State acceded as a 
State, and is an integral party; that this Government, created by this compact, was 
not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself, 
since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of 
its power : but that, as in all other cases of compact among parties having no com- 
mon judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infraction as 
of the mode and measure of redress." 

Here Mr. Jeflerson asserts that a State aggrieved shall judge 
not only of the mode, but the measure of redress. Is this trea- 
son ? If the measure of redress extends to secession, how can the 
Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Johnson) do less than denounce the 
great apostle of liberty — as Mr. Jefferson has been called — a 
traitor ? 

No less clear and explicit on this point, is the language of Mr. 
Madison, Being chairman of a committee to whom the subject 
was referred^ — the resolutions having been returned by several of 
the States — he says in his report : 

"It appears to your committee to be a plain principle, founded in common sense, 
illustrated by common practice, and essential to the nature of compacts, that where 
resort can be had to no tribunal superior to the authority of the parties, the parties 
themselves must be the rightful judges, in the last resort, whether the bargain made 
has been pursued or violated. The Constitution of the United States was formed 
by the sanction of the States, given by each in its sovereign capacity. It adds to 
the stabilitj' and diijnity, as well as to the authority, of the Constitution, that it 
rests on this legitimate and solid foundation. The States, then, being the parties to 
the constitutional compact, and in their sovereign capacity, it follows, of necessity, 
that there can be no tribunal above their authority, to decide, in the last resort, 
whether the compact made by them be violated, and consequently that, as the par- 
ties to it, they must themselves decide, in the last resort, such questions as may be 
of sufficient magnitude to require their interposition." 

In the remarks which I made on the 19th of December last, I 
referred to the fact that Virginia, in accepting the Constitution, 
declared that the powers granted under that instrument " being 
derived from the people of the United States, may be resumed by 
them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or 
oppression." I referred, also, to the fact that New York had 
adopted the Constitution upon the same condition and with the 
same reservation. I may here quote the language of Mr. Web- 
ster, distinctly recognizing the right of the people to change 
their government whenever their interest or safety require it. 
He says : 

"We see, therefore, from the commencement of the Government under which we 
live, down to this late act of the State of Kew York" — 

To which he had just referred — 

"one uniform current of law, of precedent, and of practice, all going to establish the 
point that changes in government are to be brought about by the will of the people, 
assembled under such legislative provisions as may be necessary to ascertain that 
will truly and authentically." 

If the people of a State, believing themselves oppressed, un- 
dertake to establish a government, independent of that to which 
they formerly owed allegiance, and the latter interferes with the 



14 

movement, and employs force to prevent encli a consummation, 
no one who acknowledi^es the great truth tliat the basis of all free 
government is the "consent of the governed/' 'will deny that such 
interference is an act of usurpation and tyranny. Those only 
who borrow their ideas of political justice from the despotic codes 
of Europe, and are more imbued with the sjiirit of Metternich 
and Bomba than of Jetfers<>n and Madison, -will attempt to justify, 
palliate, or excuse such violation of the sacre<l rights of the peo- 
ple. I have observed that often the noisiest champions of popu- 
lar rights are the first to trample those rights under foot. The 
■word " freedom" is continually on the tongues of gentlemen on 
the other side of the Chamber ; and I believe the Senator from 
Tennessee has been suspected of a decided leaning to agrarianisra, 
80 zealous has he been in advocating the rights, so entirely de- 
voted is he to the interests, of the ''dear people." But now, 
when the jjeople oi' the seceding States have i)ronounced, in tones 
of thunder, the tiat which absolves them from allegiance to a 
Government which they no longer respect or love, these same 
gentlemen all lift their hands in hf)rror, roll up the ^diites of their 
eyes, as did old Lord North many years ago, and exclaim "Trea- 
son I" "Treason!" Then, boiling with ])atriotic rage, they rise up 
and declare that " this treason must be punished ; the laws must 
be enforced." History tells us that this was the language of King 
George and Lord North when the colonies renounced their alle- 
giance to the mother country. The former of these worthies, we 
are told, spent much of his life in a State of mental darkness — in 
other words, he was a lunatic. The other received from nature 
a narrow intellect, and inherited prejudices common to the aris- 
tocracy of that period and of all other periods of the world's his- 
tory. Their errors were the natui-al onspring of incapacity and 
the false teaching received in their youtii. While, therefore, we 
cannot admire or approve of their conduct, these circumstances 
incline us more to sorrow than to anger, disarm our resentment, 
and dispose us to forgive what, under other circumstances, would 
deserve the severest censure. 

But wliat excuse can we find for the peculiar champions of 
pojtular rights in this Chamber; these zealous servants of the 
people, forever ringing in our ears " Let the voice of the people 
be heard; respect the will of the people; vox poind i vox DeiP'' 
Sir, I say, too, let the voice of the people be heartf and respected. 
And I think, for the sake of consistency with all my past profes- 
sions as a Democrat, I am bound to respect the declared will of 
the sovereign States which, for reasons satisfactory to themselves, 
have seceded from the Union and established a separate and in- 
dej)eiident government. AVluitever the causes may have been 
which imj)elled them to a separation from the other States, I am 
bound to respect the exjjression of their sovereign will ; and I 
heartily rej)robate the policy of attempting to thwart that will 
under the pretence of "punishing treason" and "enforcing the 
laws." Wo are told that the design is to attempt nothing more 



15 

tlian to collect the revenue in the ports of the seceded States. 
To saj nothing of the justice or injustice of the attempt so to do, 
I ask Senators from the North and the Senator from Tennessee, 
will it pay f "Will it not be a declaration of war against the 
seceding States, involving the people of all the States in a long , 
and bloody conflict, ruinous to both sections? Are their ethics' 
not the ethics of the school-boy pugilist, " Knock the chip otf of 
my shoulder?" 

One of the framers of the Constitution, whose expositions of 
that instrument all classes, all parties, have heretofore received, 
and still receive, or pretend to receive, with profound deference 
and respect, has left on record his views of the injustice, imprac- 
ticability, and inefficacy of force as a means of coercing States 
into obedience to Federal authority. The subject being under 
consideration in the convention which framed the Constitution — 

" Mr. Madison observed, that the more he reflected on the use of force, the more 
he doubted the practicability, the justice, and the efficacy of it, when applied to 
people collectively, and not individually. A Union of the States containing such 
an ingredient, seemed to provide for its own destruction. The use of force against 
a State would look more like a declaration of war than an infliction of punishment, 
and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all pre- 
vious compacts by which it might be bound. He hoped that such a system would 
be framed as might render this resource unnecessary, and moved that the clause be 
postponed." — Madison Papers, Debates in the Federal Convention, vol. 5, p. 140. 

Among the statesmen of the Revolution — those who partici- 
pated in the formation of our Government' — there was no one 
who had such exalted notions of the power and dignity of the 
Federal Government, as the great Hamilton. He was a consoli- 
dationist. The advocates of coercion might naturally expect to 
obtain "aid and comfort" from the recorded declarations of one 
of his peculiar political faith. But an examination of his writings 
will show, that instead of favoring coercion, instead of being the 
advocate of force, he was the advocate of leniency and concilia- 
tion towards refractory States, and deprecated a resort to force as 
madness and folly. He said, in a debate on the subject: 

"It has been observed, to coerce the States is one of the maddest projects that 
was ever devised. A failure of compliance will never be confined to a single State. 
This being the case, can we suppose it wise to hazard a civil war? Suppose Massa- 
chusetts, or any large State, should refuse, and Congress should attempt to compel 
them, would tliey not have influence to procure assistance, especially from those 
States which are in the same situation as themselves? What picture does this idea 
present to our view ? A complying State at war with a non-complying State ; Con- 
gress marching the troops of one State into the bosom of another; this State col- 
lecting auxiliaries, and forming, perhaps, a majority against its Federal head. Here 
is a nation at war with itself Can any reasonable man be well disposed towards 
a Government which makes war and carnage the only means of supporting itself — 
a Government which can exist only by the'sword ? Every such war must involve 
the innocent with the guilty. This single consideration should be suflicient to dis- 
pose every peaceable citizen against such a Government." — Elliot's Debates, vol. 2, 
p. 233. 

I might cite other authorities on this point. But these are 
enough. If the great names of Madison and Hamilton have not 
suflicient weight to restrain the madness of those who urge a 
coercive policy against the seceding States, then, indeed, I see 



16 

no escape from that most dreadful of all calamities which can 
befall a nation — e'lvW war. If those in this Cliamber who talk so 
flippantly of war had seen, as it lias been my lot to see, some of 
its actual horrors, they might, perhaps, heed the warhiugs and 
respect the counsels of the sages and jiatriots whose language I 
have cpioted. They would at least refrain from ungenerous in- 
sinnations against the patriotism of those northern Democrats, 
wlio, like myself, reprobate the policy of coercion as destrnctive 
of the peace, the prosperity, and happiness of every part of the 
conntry, north as well as south. 

But to return to the remarks of the Senator from Tennessee. 
In the pamphlet report of his speech, page 7, Jefferson is quoted; 
but the concluding part of the quotation is repeated in the Globe 
report, and not in that of tlie pamphlet. That part is : 

" Wlien two parties make a compact, tbere results to each a power of compelling 
the other to execute it." 

Jett'ei-son is here quoted to show that the Confederation has a 
power to enforce its articles on delinquent States. But the cita- 
tion is unfortunate for the Senator from Tennessee. lie had just 
previously asserted that Vermont and other States had, by per- 
sonal liberty bills, violated the Constitution. Well ; can he tell 
ns how Virginia and South Carolina could enforce the Constitu- 
tion on Vermont in that respect? It cannot be done. What 
follows? Why, as Mr. Webster said at Capon Springs, " a com- 
pact broken by one party is broken as to all." Ilence, according 
to the doctrines of Jefferson and Webster as to the actual case 
which, according to the Senator, has occurred, the compact hav- 
ing been broken, the southern States have a right to retire — are 
absolved from further obligations under the constitutional com- 
pact. 

Again : at page 9 of his pamphlet, the Senator from Tennessee 
asserts the identity of the secession of a State with the whiskey 
insurrection in Pennsylvania. My God ! Mr. Presi<lent, what 
can I say to a man that likens the secession of a State to the 
whiskey insurrection? What argument can you make that would 
reach such a Senator as this? IIow can you approach his intel- 
lect? How can you get at his understanding? A Senator upon 
your floor likens the solemn action, the sovereign action of a State 
in her sovereign capacity, to the whiskey insurrection that oc- 
curred in Pennsylvania in Washington's time; an insuricction 
against the laws of the State when it was attem])ted to collect rev- 
enue. The Governor called on General AVashington, then Presi- 
dent of the United States, for aid in supjiressing the insurrection 
and enforcin<ij the laws; and the Senattir likens that to the action 
of a State in her sovereign capacity, withdrawing from the Union, 
meeting in convention and dissolving her connection with her 
former confederates. Having done tliis, having passed an ordi- 
nance of secession, her delegates go home; no Governor calls 
upon the President for aid to put down the insurrection or rebel- 
lion, for robellion or insurrection there were none. It was not 



insurrection ; it was not rebellion ; it was the solemn act of sov- 
ereign States in their sovereign capacities ; and the Senator gets 
up and likens their action to the whiskey insurrection in Penn- 
sylvania. He tells us that he thinks one ought to be put down 
as well as the other ; but he does not call this coercion ; it is only 
the execution of the laws. All the powers of the Government, 
he holds, must be used in enforcing the laws ; the laws must be 
enforced whether the State has seceded or not ; whether she is in 
the Union or out of the Union. Well, sir, I am not inclined to 
argue with a Senator confessedly incapable of discriminating be- 
tween an insurrection in a State and the secession of a State. I 
will merely add, parenthetically, that if the new allies of the gen- 
tleman from Tennessee had, as good citizens in the previous past, 
been obedient to the laws instead of having openly violated them, 
therie would now be no necessity of their enforcement by war 
and extermination against men loyal and brave as ever existed. 

He then goes on to assert that the case of South Carolina nulli- 
fication was identical in principle with the whiskey insurrection ; 
and as the first was quelled by General Washington, by a display 
of military force, so the latter was by General Jackson. 

Now, sir, I will tell you what I think. Whenever it takes a man 
six weeks to study, and two days to disgorge, he never has a cor- 
rect idea of what he has been cogitating. He fails to comprehend 
the simplest problem. 

South Carolina passed an ordinance to nullify the tarift' laws on 
and after a certain day. Did General Jackson undertake to en- 
force those laws on or after that day? No; he approved and 
signed a bill passed by Congress hefore that day arrived^ repealiTig 
those laws and adopting the very principles of revenue contended 
for by South Carolina. So that, as there was no resemblance in 
the cases, there was none in the adjustment. The State prevailed. 
Coercion may have been contemplated by General Jackson at 
first, but his opinions afterward underwent a radical change. 
Every man who is well acquainted with the history of the coun- 
try knows that he never would have struck a blow ; he never 
would have fired a gun. His heart had relented after he had 
made his proclamation. He had approved the law, and then sent 
a commission, as we all know, to South Carolina, to use all possi- 
ble means to avert bloodshed. If the question had to be decided 
by the bayonet, he never would have used it, in my judgment. 

Still denying that he is for coercion, the Senator proceeds to 
assert that what South Carolina has done is treason; and treason, 
we know, is punishable with death. And yet he proposes to 
make us believe that to inflict death on a people is not coercing 
them. 

As to the argument founded on the purchase of Louisiana, 
Florida, California, and the cession of the ground on which the 
Federal forts stand — that secession cannot be resorted to as appli- 
cable to them — the simple answer is, that the right of secession 
being fundamental and paramount, all those Territories and sites 



of forts have been acquired subject to that right, and must abide 
bv it. And in buying, ac<]uiring, or annexing Territories or peo- 
]>Io, it must always be done subject to the first |)rinciplcs of our 
Gcvernnient, for they are niore precious than even the golden 
sands of California, or the sugar islands of the West Indie?: 

But the Senator does not avoid the difficulties he refers to by 
denying the right of secession, for they would all result, and 
with tenfold aggravation, from his principle of the right of 
revoliiti(»n. For, as that is a right involving force, each ]»arty 
would, of course, seek foreign alliances, and that would bring 
the armies and navies of P^urojie to our shores. Is that the 
grand result of his policy, which he says is not coercion, but only 
the execution of the laws? Why, the policy of the Senator does 
not rise one degree above that of the most survile and barbarous 
Government. The execution of the laws, as he proposes, is otdy 
the collection of tribute by force from a conquered people. That 
is the Turkish system. 

I might say here, Mr. President — for there are gentlemen now 
on this fioor that know it as well as myself — I have seen this 
policy of collecting tribute carried out on the Pacific coast. I 
haj^pened once to be present when a great Indian tribe came and 
demanded the tribute it had received annually from the Umpqna 
people. I saw the process of collection. The chief went all over 
the country. He divided his bands and sent them to every vil- 
lage and forced them to pay the amount of tribute that he desired ; 
and when they failed to pay it, he carried the delinquents away, 
and reduced them to slavery. I witnessed that myself. The 
idea of the Senator collecting tribute or taxes or revenue from 
the States that have seceded from this Union is not one iota above 
the barbarous polic}'' of the Clickitats. 

Such is the grand result at which a Senator of the United' 
States from a southern State has ai'rived, backed by the anti- 
slavery, universal-equality, peace-loving, and super-enlightened 
liejniblican organization! 

Waiving, now, Mr. President, the references made by the Sena- 
tor to the extravagant and intemperate expressions of a very few 
persons in the seceding States, and to which I might oppose those 
of a multitude of presses and distinguished men in the North, I 
come to meet his denumd to learn the wrongs infiicted on the 
South, lie, himself, admits that the Constitution has been tram- 
pled under foot by many of the northern States. Is not that 
enough? No, he says; he will approach them ii) a proper man- 
ner and request them to abstain. Well, sir, have they not been 
requested and urged for more than ten years to abstain? J low 
have these re(|uests been treated i Thc>' have been met hy further 
outrages. What new ])rocess of recjuest, of persuasion, of en- 
treaty, has the Senator discovered that is to stay the torrent and 
turn back the tide i Is he so profound, so conciliatory, so mighty a 
nuister of magic, as to be able to say to the advancing tlood of 
fanaticism : '^ Thus far and no further shalt thou come ; and here 



19 

sliall thy proud waves be stayed?" He has been in public life 
for several years. What has been his success in this undertaking ? 
Why, the thiug has been continually getting worse ; and are we 
to inter, from his failures thus far, that he is to lead us to future 
success and safety? 

I have the honor of knowing the honorable Senator for ten 
years, and I have never known him to try to do anything but to 
give away the public lands, and he has not even succeeded in 
doing that. I recollect the impression he made on my mind when 
I first heard him advocate the so-called homestead bill. He will 
pardon me for mentioning it with all respect. I was then a Dele- 
gate. It was on a hot summer day, in the House of Representa- 
tives, and there was the distinguished Senator, with his sleeves 
rolled up, delivering himself of a flaming and characteristic 
speech. " Land for the landless and homes for the homeless'' was 
then his cry. The Senator has not succeeded in giving away all 
the public lands ; neither has he been fortunate in staying this 
torrent of fanaticism that has been rolling over the country, and 
I am afraid he cannot. I am willing to give him the balance of 
his life to work in, and I hope he may succeed in rolling it back. 
I hope he will have better success than he has had in depriving 
the country of its public lands, and giving them away to those 
that do not deserve them. " Land for the landless, and homes 
for the homeless !" has been his constant cry. 

But while, in one part of his speech, he distinctly charges on 
the Xorth a trampling of the Constitution under foot, in another 
part, turning to the South, he exclaims: "Why should we go out 
of the Union; have we anything to fear? What are we alarmed 
about '<" What, sir ! a people like the South, numerically inferior 
to their associate section in the same Government, have nothing 
to fear from trampling on the Constitution, the only defence in 
that Government for a minority against the majority ! 

But let us be more specific. Let us answer the oft-repeated 
question as to what the South complains of, and what she fears. 

She complains, then : 

1. Tliat, having $4:,000,000,000 of property in slaves, and 
$4,000,000,000 more of real and personal property connected with 
it, the right to that property, and the protection thereof, are de- 
nied by the party that- now, under the forms of the Constitution, 
claims the control of the common Government. 

2. That having an immense interest in the common territory of 
the Union, not only as to its market value, but as to the right of 
occupation and settlement, that party now claiming the Govern- 
ment has distinctly pronounced for its confiscation, unless the 
southern emigration shall renounce their own institutions, and 
adopt those of the North — and this with the avowed design and 
inevitable eflect of overthrowing, gradually, the entire system of 
southern property, prosperity, and civilization. 

3. That the plainest stipulations of the Constitution for the res- 
titution of slave property have been practically set at naught by 



the action of State Legislatures, and tlio perverted public senti- 
ment in the free States. 

4. That, while anti-slavery new States are forming rapidly to 
he admitted into this Union, States like their own are to be ex- 
cluded altogether hereafter; aiul they hold that if such States as 
theirs have no right to be atlmitted among us, there would be no 
honor nor safety in their remaining any longer. 
I 5. That, in consequence of the intense and faJiatical hostility 
•that prevails in the North against their institutions, many zeah^ts 
from that region, abusing the freedom of intercourse which the 
present Union atfords, have been, and are now, going among them 
to stir up insurrection, thus destroying their projterty, and en- 
dangering the safety of their homes, their families, and their 
firesides. 

And in this place — having shown to the Senator from Tennessee 
what are the complaints of the South — it is proper to refer to an 
article of the treaty for the cession to us of Louisiana, which the 
Senator cites to j)rove tliat, somehow or other, the people of that 
State have less right than those of the original States, I have 
already answered that argument. But this very third article 
which he quotes, while it does not avail him, shows specifically 
that the people of Louisiana had a special treaty right, besides 
the constitutional one, to go with their property into the Terri- 
tories ; tlie right now denied by the Chicago platform. The ar- 
ticle says : 

"The inliabitants of the ceded territory shall be incorporated into the Union of 
the United Stales, and admitted as soon ta possible, according to the priiioij)les of 
the Federal Constitution, to the enjoyment of the rights, advantages, and immuni- 
ties of citizens of the United States; and, in the mean time, they shall be main- 
tained and protected in the free enjoyment of their liberty, propert}-, and the re- 
ligion they profess." 

Now, before Arkansas was admitted, her people were, by the 
compromise of 1820, cut ofi" from emigrating with their property 
to any of their Louisiana territory north of 30° 30'. And when 
the treaty of 1803 was made, all Louisiana territory was slave- 
holding, and the right was undisputed of migrating from one part 
of it to another, with slaves ; nor was there any pretence of right 
asserted in this country to exclude slavery from any part of it ; 
80 that the people of Louisiana have a peculiar right, or a special 
provocation, to secede. 

'^\r. President, the Senator from Tennessee complains of my 
remarks on his speech. lie complains of the tone and temper of 
what I said. He complains that I rejtlied at all, as I was a north- 
ern Senator. Mr. President, I am a citizen of this Union, and a 
Senator of the United States. My residence is in the North, but 
T have Tiever seen the day, and I never shall, when I will refuse 
justice as readily to the Soutli as to the North. I know nothing 
but my country, the M'hole coimtry, the Constitution, and the 
equality of the States — the equal right of every man in the com- 
mon territory of the whole country ; an^l Ijy that 1 shall stand. 



21 

The Senator complains that I replied at all, as I was a northern 
Senator, and a Democrat whom he had supported at the last elec- 
tion for a high office. Now, I was, as I stated at the time, sur- 
prised at the Senator's Speech— because I understood it to be for 
coercion, as I think it was by almost everybody else except, as 
we are now told, by the Senator himself; and I still think it 
amounted to a coercion speech, notwithstanding the soft and 
plausible phrases by which he describes it— a speech for the exe- 
cution of the laws and the protection of the Federal property. 
Sir, if there is, as I contend, the right of secession, then, when- 
ever a State exercises that right, this Government has no laws in 
that State to execute, nor has it any property in any such State 
that can be protected by the power of this Government. In at- 
tempting, however, to substitute the smooth phrases of "execu- 
ting the laws" and " protecting public property" for coercion, for 
civU war, we have an important concession, i. e., that this Gov- 
ernment dare not go before the people with a plain avowal of its 
real purposes, and of their consequences. No, sir ; the policy is 
to inveigle the people of the North into civil war, by masking 
the design in smooth and ambiguous terms. But the Senator is 
surprised that I, as a northern Senator, should have replied to 
him at all. It was because I was astonished that he, as a southern 
Senator, should make the speech he did. He is surprised that I, 
as a Democrat, should reply to him. It was because I was mor- 
tified that he, as a Democrat, should make the speech he did. 

But in the very close of his speech, he referred to the northern 
Democrats, of whom I am one, and complimented us on our de- 
fence of southern rights, and urged that we should not be deserted 
by the secession of our southern friends. But then he left the 
inference very clear that we were to aid this Government, soon 
to be Black Republican, in enforcing the laws against what I be- 
lieve to be the constitutional rights of the southern seceding 
States. Sir, I thought no time was to be lost in giving him and 
the country notice that we vx^ould do no such thing ; that we were 
not going to be the tools, the hangmen, or the executioners of 
brethren for the gratification of fanatics ; that we would not be 
their allies, or his allies, in the incendiary and unnatural scheme 
of desolating the South, our fellow-men and fellow-Democrats. 
As for the services which the Senator from Tennessee parades 
and recites, in the late presidential canvass in his State, so far as 
they were rendered to our party, or in any degree for my personal 
benefit, I am duly grateful ; but I must be permitted to say, that 
if in his speeches in that contest he advanced such doctrines as 
he now proclaims, I am not so much surprised that we were de- 
feated in that State. And as for the intimation of the Senator, 
that in replying to him the other day I acted at the instance of 
other Senators here, or persons elsewhere, or that I had any un- 
derstanding or concert with them, it is utterly unfounded. 

Now, sir, I want it distinctly understood, as I have already 
•shown, that during the last session I stood firmly by the Davis 



resolutions. I voted against every amendment. I voted against 
an amendment that he vt»ted f<»r, because I believed it was partial, 
iiud (lid not do justice. That Senator, with those declaration<i be- 
fore him, sniii»orted the ticket on which I ran in Tennessee. He 
ought not t<» have deceived the })et)ple, or himself, and it was not 
my fault if he did ; for he saw published in every paper here a 
telegraphic dispatch from me to one of the delegates from Oregon 
at Charleston, during the sitting of the Charleston convention. 
He asked me what Oregon should do ; and in that dispatch I told 
him to go with the States that stocjd by the Constitution ; to stand 
by them to the last. That was the bjisis on which I stood.- The 
Senator knew what I said here; he knew the nature of my votes 
here ; he knew what I said in that dispatch ; he knew what I 
said in my speeches, and in the letter accepting the nomination. 
If he told the people that I was in favor of submitting to the 
rule of a party that would refuse justice and e(]uality in this 
country, he deceived the people. I contend for the right, and 
will not submit to wrong. If the Senator, in his sj^eeches in 
Tennessee, represented me as a submissionist to a wrong, to in- 
jury, to inequality, he presented me in a cowardly position, that 
I would not occupy for any consideration. I speak for myself. 
I say it is a position I would never occupy in Tennessee, Oregon, 
or anywhere else. I intend to stand by the right. If every man 
in every State should be servile enough to refuse to contend for 
their rights, I alone will contend for all they are entitled to ; 
nothing more and nothing less. 

The Senator on that occasion looked at me, pointed in my di- 
rection, and made remarks not becoming a Senator — remarks 
that have been too often made on this floor, and that no gentle- 
man ever would make. He said he had struck treason a blow. 
The mighty Senator from Tennessee struck treason a blow ! To 
whom did he allude? He said he saw the commotion on this 
side of tlie House; he saw the books being brouglit in ; he saw 
that I was to reply to him. Sir, if the word "treason'' was to be 
ajiplied by him or any other man to me, I would say, you are a 
coward that cannot maintain it. Sir, I cannot express my con- 
tempt of the man who would so insinuate, even in thought. A 
drop of treason never raii in my veins. At an hour's notice, M'hen 
working in a conilield for the sup])ort of niy family, when I heard 
that Indiana had been called on for troops, I otlered my services; 
and I did not look up()n my family tVom ten minutes after I had 
received the notice until I had gone through bloody battles; un- 
til I had carried home with me evidence of my devotion to the 
Union. Does the Senator dare to charge trcfison npon me? I 
think not; for no gentleman would have the temerity to do it. 
I might go on and say that I entered that service as a private, 
M'ith my knapsack on my back, and I came home out of the ser- 
vice with the rank of Major (leneral in the Army. 1 earned it 
on the battle-field. On the battle-iield I lost almost the last drop 
of my blood witiiout a murmur, in the service of my country. 



23 

Who, then, is he that would dare have the brazen effrontery to 
charge me with treason to my country — a country which I have 
loved from my infancy, which my father fought for, and which I 
have never failed to fight for myself? I never will fail to meet 
the foe of my country, or to bleed in her cause, while I am able. 

Though my arm is not as strong as it once was, though my 
limbs may not be now supple or elastic as in youth, I am yet able, 
when my country shall need my services, to offer them ; and I 
shall be the first to do it on any just occasion; but never against 
one of the States of this Union who has left it because justice 
has b'een denied to her. No, sir ; never ! 

Then, sir, whom could the Senator from Tennessee refer to. 
Could he allude to my friend Davis? Sir, I saw him on the bat- 
tle-field. I was looking right in his face when he was wounded. 
I saw a shudder pass over him as the bullet struck him, precisely 
at the side-end of his spur, and passed through the center of his 
heel. There was perceptible simply a shudder ; but not a mur- 
mur; just a shudder for the instant, when struck by the bullet ; 
but never, for a moment, did he lose sight of the enemy or the 
flag, but struggled on through the battle to the end, following the 
glorious stars and stripes, that emblem of the Union, that emblem 
of the Constitution, that emblem of protection to every State of 
the Confederacy under the Constitution, as gallantly as ever did 
mortal man; and jet upon this floor there are some base enough 
to allude to him as a traitor. Mr. President, I have not words to 
express my contempt for any man that can apply such a term to 
such a man as Jefferson Davis. Jefferson Davis a traitor! 
Treason applied to him! He, the purest and bravest of patriots! 
He fought for his flag and country when the cowards and poltroons 
that now dare villify him were supine at home. He will live 
glorious in history when they are earth and forgotten. Sir, this 
"treason" of our seceding brethren does not fall within the defi- 
nition given by Hudibras to that crime ; for the South flourishes 
and pro.:;pers. The people who have seceded from the Union, and, 
have formed a government of their own, are charged with treason. 
I will tell gentlemen they will have more than ordinary difficulty 
to coni'Ojid with when they invade the rights of that government. 
But to ni'oceed with my argument. 

Now, !^ir, in reference to that speech of the Senator, it was, as 
I regard it, an unnatural speech. It was a bad speech ; and did 
more to strengthen the Black Republican party than all the 
speeches of all the Senators on the other side of the Chamber 
during this session. But for that speech, we should have had a 
settlement of the difliculty before this. It went to the country, 
and made the people believe that the "giant" Senator from Ten- 
nessee was for coercion. It was complimented and eulogized by 
the Republican press, and in pamphlet form circulated by hun- 
dreds of thousands throughout the North. And the distinguished 
Senator from New York speaks of him as the "noble" Senator 
from Tennessee. Noble for what? Noble for his abandonment 



24 

of the rifflits of the States; iioMe for the abandonment of the 
rights of his section ; noble i'ov aitliiii^ and assisting a party who 
refuse justice to the citizens of the South? 

But the Senator from Tennessee proceded with an air anil tone 
of great triumph to bring forward my vote on the amendments 
proposed to tlie Davis re.sohitions. I tliink I liave said all that it 
is necessary for me to say uj)on that subject. I have shown that 
I voted for them under all circumstances, and against every 
amen<hiient. Tho,<e resolutions assert the right of properly in 
the Territories, and that when the courts fail to aftbrd protection, 
then it is the duty of Congress to come forward and provide that 
protection. I wished to put slave property npon the same foot- 
ing as other })roi)erty. That is wliere I then stood, where I now 
stand, and where I intend to stand. The Senator asks, with a 
kind of triumphant air, what has hai)})ened since that day? Mr. 
President, I have said that I have done all in my power, by stand- 
ing tirm to the resolutions agreed to by the Democratic party, to 
alford protection. The Senator misrepresented my vote on those 
resolutions. I never voted against the Davis resolutions, nor did 
their substitute ever come up as a separate proposition. It was 
an amcndnieut to one of that series of resolutions I voted against; 
and I would vote against anything and everything that would 
embarrass their passage, for they contained just what I thought 
w^as right, and just what he did not vote for; but, as I have 
already shown, he voted to substitute instead thereof a proposition 
which was unsatisfactory and inade(iuate — neither satisfactory to 
me, to the Democratic masses and Ilepresentatives, nor to the 
South. 

The Senator from Tennessee, with great exultation, asks, if pro- 
tection was not necessary then, wdiat has happened since to make 
it so, and to break up the Union for the want of it? What has 
hapj)ened since? Why, a thing has happened that never hap- 
pened before. The denial of any and all protection to slave 
property in any and in all the territory ; the denial of the right 
to take slave proj>erty to any of them has been proclaimed and 
atRrmed at the ballot-box by a nuijority of the States and a ma- 
iority of the electoral votes of this Union. And yet the Senator 
has the coolness to ask what has lia})pened, and to make merry 
with the question, and have the sympathetic merriment of the Re- 
publican Senators. AVhat has happened i Why, the thing has 
Iiappened that has been three times before attempted, and three 
times before failed ; the first attempt having endangered the for- 
mation of the Union, and the second and tiiird its continuance. 
The lirst attempt was made in 1784, to exclude slavery tVom all 
the Territories. It was abandoned in 1787 by excluding it <uily 
from the territory lujrthwest of the Ohio, leaving it to colonize 
that portion southwest of that river. The same thing was again 
attempted in 1820, as to the territory acquired from Louisiana; 
and after a terrible agitation, was abandoned by adopting the 
Missouri line. The third attempt was made in 1850, as to the 



25 

territory acquired from Mexico ; and then also the Union nar- 
rowly escaped destruction ; but the compromise measures were 
adopted. And now it comes again, but in a more formidable 
way than ever. A President has been elected on that issue ; for 
the first time the people of the North, after all previous compro- 
mises and warnings, have voted on the question, and every north- 
ern State has pronounced for the spoliation ; and there stood the 
Senator from Tennessee and asked, with an air of triumphant ig- 
norance and exulting stupidity, what has happened ? 

Oh ! but we are told that although the people of the North 
have so voted, and so elected, and thereby are about to seize the 
gigantic power of this Government to accomplish the flagitious 
design, they have not accomplished it yet. We must wait for 
the overt act! 

What! if a man proclaims his intention to burn my barn, and 
I see him approach with a lighted torch, am I to wait for the 
overt act? If some military chieftain was about to bombard this 
splendid edifice, and had drawn out his artillery to lay these mar- 
ble columns in ruins, and level yon proud dome with the ground, 
must we wait for the thing to be done ? But if there are some 
people not quite so blind as not to see what has happened, and 
not quite so servile or so base as to %vait until that still more splen- 
did fabric, the Constitution, is tailing in ruins around them, from 
the torches of frenzied fanatics, and amid their exultant shouts, 
but conclude to separate themselves from such brethren, they show 
that they at least know not only what has happened, but what 
would be likely to happen next, if they had no more perception 
nor foresight than the Senator from Tennessee. 

But, we have been told by the Senator, as we have often been 
told by others, that the secession movement is a sudden and vio- 
lent excitement, caused by the plans and harangues of artful and 
ambitious leaders ; and that it must soon subside. A sudden and 
precipitate movement! Why, it is now more than twelve years 
since all the southern States, Tennessee included, decided by the 
almost unanimous vote of both parties in their Legislatures, that 
they Avould at all hazards, and to the last extremity, resist the 
adoption of the Wilmot proviso. Now, the North has resolved 
upon it by the unanimous vote of all her States, and has the 
power, according to the forms of the Constitution, to execute that 
resolve ; and yet, for preparing at once to resist this aggression, 
three times solemnly attempted before, and three times before re- 
pulsed by the South, we are now told that the South is precipi- 
tate — is mad. 

I know it is said that there are still some Senators and Kepre- 
sentatives from the North in Congress who will oppose this Re- 
publican design, and that it may be ultimately defeated by their 
votes in connection with that "^of the South. But, in the mean 
time, the Chicago convention, Avith consummate cunning, declares 
that there is no right for slavery to go into the Territories ; and 
hence, if it does go, the new Executive will aiford it no protec- 



26 

tion if assailed; and it is well known that many of the support- 
ers fur tlie Presidency of tlie ^Senator from Illinois, (Mr. Douglas,) 
who, together with the lie])nblicans, make up a large ]>ortion of 
the North, also deny that slavery has any right to protection in 
the Territories; the decision of the Supreme Court, that it has 
the right to go there, to the contrary notwithstandiTig, 

For the South, then, to wait would l)e to 6ul)mit until her forts 
were arn.ed and garrisoned against her, and the guns turned land- 
ward ; to wait until her share of the public arms were placed in 
possession of her enemies ; to wait until the Federal Army is 
stationed to act with promptitude to subdue her; to wait until 
Kepublican })ostmasters are stationed throughout her villages and 
cross-roads, to circulate the works of Greely and of Helper; to 
w^ait until servile insurrection is organized; and all these things 
the Tresidcnt alone can do. The South is to wait for all this; 
while southern Senators sit, blind as moles and deaf as adders, or, 
having eyes, see not, and having ears, hear not the things that 
pertain to her temporal salvation. 

Mr. President, ])erhaps the most signal instance of the evils of 
coni]>ulsory union between dissimilar ])eople, is that of Ireland 
and England. The peo})le of Ireland — the home and heritage of 
my ancestors — have, as the South has, a representation in the 
national Legislature; but being also, as the South is, in a minori- 
ty in tliat body, have no power to protect themselves from the 
aggressions of England. The consequence is, that they have been 
excluded from the common benetits of British legislation, com- 
mercially, and even religiously, to say nothing of their exclusion 
from oiiicial station in the Empire. And, accoi-dingly, Ireland 
has been impoverished, degraded, and discontented. She has 
been trampled ui)on, outraged, insulted, treated like Cinderella. 
The people of this country have alwaj'^s sympathized with the 
wrongs of Ireland, and her struggles for independence. Yet 
there is now a greater difference between the people of the South 
and of the North than between those of England and Ireland, 
and greater antagonism of o])inion and feeling. Nevei'theless, it 
is ])r()poscd to hold the South in |)olitical 8ubjecti(ui to the North, 
and for that ])urpose to employ naval and military force. 

Sir, I migiit mention many other cases; the subjection of 
Greece to Turkey ; of Poland to Russia; of the Netherlands to 
Spain ; Italy to Austria. In all these bases we have sympathized 
with, and, in many of them aided, the secession from the com- 
mon government, by contributions and individual service. Yet 
those Goveriimeiits were not luunded on consent, and there was 
no coni])act conceding the right of secession. 

And now, Jifter I have shown that modern history abounds in 
Buch cases, and after ])r()vino: that our opinions and sympathies 
have invariably been with the seceding parties, it is deliberately 
proposed and proclaimed that the northern section of this Union, 
60 devoted to liberty, so exalted in civilization, so pure in morals, 
and devout in religion, shall imitate the most despotic policy of 



27 ■ 

England, Austria, Turkey, Spain, and Russia? Is it reserved for 
this enlightened age, and this land of the free, for that section 
which arrogates to itself the preeminence in piety and civiliza- 
tion, to show itself capable of imitating the worst crimes of the 
Governments of the Old World, to emulate the most atrocious 
examples of the very worst Governments, whether civilized or 
semi-barbarous? But, sir, while I have referred to the several 
cases of people heretofore undertaking to secede from oppressive 
Unions, I do not for a moment compare the ability of the South, 
or the probable issue of the impending struggle, to the cases cited. 
Not at all, sir. The southern States will not be conquered. They 
may be destroyed, but never subjugated. Let me beg the party 
who are soon to take charge of this Government to let the seceded 
States alone, and by no means to attempt to collect revenue in 
their ports ; that would result in a bloociy, terrible war ; but, on 
the contrary, acknowledge the independence of the Confederate 
States of America, and treat with them as an ally and friendly 
nation. 

Sir, in conclusion, whether the course the seceding States have 
seen fit to take be right or not, is a question which we must leave 
to posterity, and the verdict of impartial history. (Jur time will 
probably be more profitably employed in considering how we 
shall deal with secession than in discussing the causes which have 
produced it. Secession, right or wrong, justifiable or unjustifia- 
ble, is an accomplished fact ; and it presents to us no less an al- 
ternative than that of peace or war. Sir, I believe that, in the 
general ruin which would follow coercive measures against the 
seceding States, all sections, all classes, all the great interests of 
the country, without any exception, would be involved. How 
much better, Mr. President, that, in so fearful a crisis as the pre- 
sent, instead of passing " force bills," and preparing for war, in- 
stead of " breathing threatenings and slaughter," and preparing 
implements of destruction to be used against our brethren of the 
South, how much better, I say, for ourselves, for posterity, for 
the cause of civil liberty throughout the world, that our thoughts 
should be turned on peace? Peace, not war, has brought our 
country to the high degree of prosperity it now enjoys. The 
energies of the people up to this time have been directed to the 
development of our boundless resources, to the mechanic arts, to 
agriculture, mining, trade, and commerce with foreign nations. 
Banish peace, turn these mighty energies of the people to the 
prosecution of the dreadful work of mutual destruction, and soon 
cities in ruins, fields desolate, the deserted marts of trade, the 
silent workshops, gaunt famine stalking through the land, the 
land, the earth cumbered with the bodies of the dying and the 
dead, will bear awful testimony to the madness and wickedness 
which, from the very summit of prosperity and happiness, are 
plunging us headlong into an abyss of woe. 

Sir, in God's name, let us have peace. If we cannot have it 
in the Union, as it existed prior to November last, let us have it 



38 

by cultivating friendly relations with those States which have 
dissolved their coniiectioii with that Union, and established a 
separate government. Though we and they may nut, and per- 
haps, in the nature of things, caniiot live harmoniously under the 
same CTOvernnient, it is our interest, no less than theirs, that we 
should at once endeavor to estaldish between our Government 
and theirs those amicable relations which should ever exist be- 
tween two neighboring Republics. War, with its attendant hor- 
rors, being thus happily averted, the people of each Republic will 
be left at liberty to pursue, undisturbed, their several vocations. 
A mutually advantageous commerce will grow up between the 
two nations ; treaties, such as regulate our intercourse with the 
Canadas, will be formed ; confidence in all branches of business 
will bo restored ; a new impetus given to every variety of indus- 
try ; the march of improvement accelerated, and the cause of 
humanity, of civilization, and of Christianity, advanced through- 
out the world. The people of Europe, accustomed to refer the 
settlement of their slightest dilferences to the bloody arbitrament 
of the sword, will behold with silent wonder and amazement the 
spectacle of a great people unable to agree in reference to one of 
their peculiar domestic institutions, peacefully separating, as did 
the patriarchs of old; resolving themselves into two distinct po- 
litical communities, not hostile, discordant, beligerent: but each, 
animated with a spirit of generous rivalry towards the other, pur- 
suing a more successful and prosperous career in its own chosen 
patii. than when, nnited under the same Federal head, they pain- 
fully sought together the same common destiny. 

Mr. President, we are living at a day and at a time when a 
northern sectional party have obtained possession of the power of 
this great Government, who have declared in their platform, in 
their speeches everywhere, and in their ])ress, that slavery shall 
never go into another foot of territory; that no other slave State 
shall ever be admitted into this Union ; that slavery shall be put 
in the course <»f ultimate extinction. We have the announcement 
of the party that the foot of a slave shall never press the soil of 
one of tiie Territories ; that no new slave State shall be admitted ; 
and. in addition to that, that no slave State shall go out of the 
Union. Who ever saw such a ]iarty as that? Who ever knew 
anything like it in the world before ? They will not let slavery 
go into the Territories; they will not let a slave State come in; 
and they will not let one go out! They will not let them go out 
because they could not carry out their programme of ])lacing 
slavery in tiie course of ultimate extinction. They want to keep 
the slave States in for their beneiit — to foot the bills, to })ay the 
taxes — that they may govern them as they see fit, and rule them 
against their will. Well, sir, I wish to say one word to that par- 
ty, in all kindness; for I shall not trouble them again on this 
subject. I shall be a ]n-ivate, inde])endent citizen before long. 
But I will say to that party, they had better change their tactics ; 
they had better change front, and do it speedily. Let thein 



place themselves upon the high ground of right and justice, and 
adopt such amendments to the Constitution as will not only hold 
old Kentucky, which has produced the greatest "compromiser" 
of us all — that good old State where I was raised, and that I am 
proud of — hut the other soutliern State also. I am afraid Repub- 
licanism will not^do this. I know those old Kentucky people 
from terrace to foundation. They will endure much — very inuch 
— peaceabl}'' and quietly ; but if they are goaded too far ; if, by 
repeated wrongs, they are compelled to fight, then I would say 
to their enemy "beware!" There are chivalry and patriotism 
in Kentucky which is neither in the power of accident nor nature 
to subdue. You had better not press them too far. Do not drive 
them to the goal of last resort. Give them justice while you 
have it in your power to do so. Satisfy them that ultimately 
they shall have equality in this broken Government, or Union, if 
you will. But, sir, I leave the patching up of the Constitution 
to the distinguished Senator from Kentucky and other gentlemen, 
especially my friend from Pennsylvania, (Mr. Bigler,) who has 
labored harder to patch up the Constitution than any man I ever 
knew, except my friend from Kentucky, and I wish him God 
speed in the work. Let it be upon just principles ; let it be right ; 
let us have justice ; and I shall be content. 

Now, Mr. President, I owe it to myself to say a few words upon 
another subject. I am sorry it is necessary ; but the supercilli- 
ousness of the honorable Senator from Tennessee in taking me to 
task the other day in a manner that I thought was unparliamen- 
tary, to say the least, on the subject of the navigation of the Mis- 
sissippi river, renders it indispensable that I should do so. I de- 
sire to say but a few words relative to that point, and leave the 
Senate to decide between us. By the way, before I commence, I 
will say that I have been borne out in all I have said in rehition 
to that matter by the action of Louisiana, and by the action of 
the confederated States. I look upon that government as one of 
the finest experiments on the face of the earth, or in the liistory 
of mankind, embodying the purest patriotism, the highest order 
of statesmanship, and the greatest amount of talent and adminis- 
trative capacity that can be found among the same number of 
people in any Government on the face of the globe. They, by 
their action, have indorsed all that I said upon the subject of the 
navigation of the Mississippi river. The Governor of the State 
of Louisiana had the kindness, seeing what I said, and that the 
Senator from Tennessee had doubted the chivalry, the general 
honesty, and patriotism of the people of LonisianaJ^ to send me — 
and I have had it here for the last two weeks, but have not had 
the opportunity of presenting it before — the ordinance of seces- 
sion, and accompanying it a resolution on the subject of the navi- 
gation of the Mississippi river, which is in these words : 

''Resolved, That we, the people of Louisiana" — 

in their sovereign capacity, mark you ; not a little whiskey in- 
surrection, but the people in their sovereign capacity, as a State 
in convention assembled : 



30 

" Jiesolvecl, That we, the people of Louisiana, recognize the right of the free navi- 
gation of the 31ississipj)i river and its tributaries by all friendly States bordering 
thereon. And we also recognize the right of ingress and egress of the mouths of 
tlie Mississippi by all friendly States and Powers; and we do hereby declare our 
willingness to enter into any stipnlations to guaranty the exercise of said rights." 

Since Louisiana has passed tliis resolution, the government of 
the confederate States, by its Congress, has passed a siniihir reso- 
lution, resolving, as they ought to do, and as I said they would 
do, that the navigation of the Mississippi river should be free to 
all friendly States, and free to all States bordering on it or its 
tributaries, lint I will go into a little history of the Senator's 
remarks on the occasion of his last two days' speech. God save 
the country from such speeches! 

Mr. President, the Senator from Tennessee expressed his dis- 
approbation at what I said as to the navigation of the Mississippi, 
and misrepresented me, when he said that I spoke of the right 
to navigate the Mississii)pi, as if I had great familiarity with in- 
ternational law. I affected no such familarity. AVhat I did say, 
I spoke rather donbtingly, and I cannot understand how a mind 
not inclined to perversion could give such an interpretation to 
my words. His words I will read. Referring to me, with a 
marked manner, he said : 

" He seemed to show great familiarity with international law." 

In the next sentence he repeated this, and said : 

"He spoke about it with great familiarity, as if he understood it well." 

Now, sir, this is not the truth. I will here repeat the words 
"which I used, that elicited the criticism of this new expounder of 
international law. I said : 

" I believe it is recognized as the law of nations, as the law of all civilized nations, 
that a great inland sea, running through several Governments, shall be open equally 
to all of them." 

I did not speak like a lawyer, confident in his knowledge, but 
I spoke rather donbtingly, and without assurance or ])retence, 
and just as I felt became one who was not professionally informed. 
In relation to what I said as to the rule of national law, as ap- 
plied to the Mississippi, I used the i>hrase "I believe," certainly 
not a presumptuous term. The Senator goes to work and ])on- 
ders for several weeks over my speech, made without j)remcdita- 
tion, and the speeches of other Senators, scra})es up as many 
fragments as possible for the manufacture of his own, and then 
conies into the Senate with what he thinks, no doubt, is a very 
learned tlisplay. With the air of a learned giant, burdened witli 
•wis<lom and knowledge, he undertakes to rebuke me by a super- 
cilious sneer at my alleged familiarity with international law. 
He assumes to rebuke me, also, for not knowing what he knew; 
which wa.s, that the navigation of the Mississippi river had been 
the subject of negotiation for '' years and years, ' as well as other 
rivers throughout the world. This was all very wise and very 
triumphant, if there were not two sides to the question. He 
quotetl from Mr. AVheaton's Klements, in order to show, as I sup- 
pose, his own deep research in the ntatters of international law. 



31 

As nsnal, the Senator understood very little of what he quoted. 
He utterly missed the true point, and, of course, failed to state 
the case as it really stood. 

Now, mark you, sir, I say, " I believe" I am right. I will state 
it, aud I do so believing it will be understood, as I have hereto- 
fore represented it, and would be indorsed by professional men 
of eminence. As to the Mississippi having been the subject, for 
years, of negotiation, is a fact I was aware of. But, sir, notwith- 
standing the Senator's lengthy quotations, I think I can demon- 
strate to the satisfaction of others, if not to him, that my view of 
the question is correct. He has made a quotation at great length 
from Mr. Wheaton, which has no special application to this case, 
like most of the law quotations he selects. 

I spoke of the law of nations, of course, as relative to the inci- 
dents of the subject-matter adverted to — an inland sea, (or great 
river,) under the circumstances of the Mississippi ; of course, not 
under adverse circumstances. Rome once claimed the right to 
shut up the navigation of the entire Mediterranean ; but such 
cases decide nothing. She held the control of its entrance. So, 
at one time, in a less enlightened day, Rnssia claimed despotic 
mastery over the mouth of the Danube. The other great river of 
western Europe, the Rhine, rising in Switzerland, passing France 
and Baden, Prussia, Belgium, and the ISTetherlands, was, under a 
less liberal policy of national law than now prevails, subject to tolls. 

But, sir, what are the facts. Austria, and other powers, never 
conceded that Russia had the right of controlling the mouth of 
the Danube. In 181 J:, as I understand it — I may be wrong — the 
navigation was settled to be free. The demonstration of "Russia 
afterwards, to change this, was resisted by Austria ; and the other 
Powers of Europe interposed and prevented its disturbance, upon 
the ground that it was the true rule of national law, as between 
their Governments, that the river should remain free to its mouth. 
The same western powers, as I believe, further enforced that 
principle in the treaty which lollowed the capture of Sebastopol. 
The navigation of the Rhine was finally adjusted upon the same 
basis, as the true rule of national law under the circumstances, 
and as between the parties. When I say, therefore, an inland 
sea — or river, if you please — passing through several nations, is 
open to the navigation of all, it is not meant that any fixed and 
acknowledged right is to be violated. What is meant is simply 
that which is correspondent with the circumstances and the his- 
tory of the case. If all the parties had claims, no greater nation 
possessing the mouth of the river, is at liberty, by a mere exercise 
of power, to violate those rights because of that power. In this 
sense has been established, and now exists, the rules of national 
law which govern the Danube and the Rhine, No tolls, I believe, 
are collected on either. A state of war, for the time being, sus- 
pends those rights, but does not abolish them. 

Now, sir, as to the principles laid down among the highly civil- 
ized nations of Europe, at this day, as applicable to the Missis- 



32 

eippi, I am right, and he is wrong. He has no principles about 
it. He goes back to an old fogy land for his precedent. He is 
a long way behind tlie times, in my opinion, just as he was in re- 
lation to the rights of the southern States, and as he will be in 
relation to the action of his own. Now, sir, bear in mind this 
diagram of national principles, as I have tried to state it, and as 
now adjusted among the great Powers of western Europe, which 
is the great source of ascertaining national law, and it necessai-ily 
follows, that the States of this Confederacy — I believe I am right 
in that — having been equally interested with Louisiana in the 
navigation of the Mississippi, by the law of nations, they retain that 
equal right, and are not attected by a change of Government. It 
is such a right, as having been always equally enjoyed, it cannot 
be disturbed except in two wa3'8: first, by treaty; and second, by 
war. The latter only suspends it. This, sir, is the explanation as I 
understand it, and as I believe it to be right. I hope the reporter 
•will put down the words " I believe ;" that is the word I intend 
to use on this subject. What a j^ageant — what a ridiculous page- 
ant — has tlie Senator made by stuffing himself (it only took six 
weeks) with inapplicable scraps of law of learned lengtli, as if 
specially to be exhibited before this Senate, to prove nothing, and 
to fit nothing. I, sir, will not deal in either inuendoes or irony; 
but I will plainly say that, if the Senator would quote only a little 
law, and understand all that little well, it would be better, im- 
measurably better, than to quote so much, and comprehend so 
ver}^ small a portion of what he does quote. 

Now, Mr. President, I have paid all the attention to the attempt 
that was made to place me in the wrong that I deem necessary. 
I can only now repeat, in the conclusion of my speech, that 
neither the Senator from Tennessee, nor any other Senator, nor 
can any man, tell the truth and say that 1 have, by any vote, 
word, or act of mine, at any time or on any occasion, refused 
protection to all property alike in the Territories. I have made 
It a point always. Indeed, the doctrine of the equal right of 
property, whether slave or any other, in the Territories, and its 
equal right to protection, is as strong in me as life itself; I have 
never uttered a word against that principle ; but I have said, 
upon all occasions, that that doctrine must be maintained, or this 
Union could not stand. I have fought for it; but as I said in the 
outset, while I deeply deplore the condition of the country, it has 
been caused by no act of mine. And with this remark, I part 
with him, who, in imitation of Esau, seeks to sell his birthright. 
I would, if there was time, give a little advice to all sides, to every 
Senator on this floor. I would say : Senators, come up to the 
great importance of this question; meet it; adopt, by a two- 
thirds vote — as we could do, if Senators would deal riglitly — 
amendments to the Constitution, placing all the States upon an 
equality in tlie Territories, and on every other question ; submit 
them to the people; and by such amendments I believe we could 
prevent, or stop, a further rupture of this Union. 



